WC Central Park | 84m, 85m, 81m, 20m | 29fl, 30fl, 28fl, 6fl | Completed
 

Think I first mentioned this one a couple of years ago. It's been a slow process but it's about to speed up quickly now. The project is now headed by Wall Financial (which explains why he spoke up a few months ago about saving Carleton School). This project has a date with the UDP on June 1. Looking it over I don't expect it to run into any issues. Personally I think the taller building should be at the bottom of the hill but nothing major.

Site Context
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...itecontext.pdf

Site Plan
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...s/siteplan.pdf

Plans
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ents/plans.pdf

Building Form
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ildingform.pdf

Public Amenities
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../amenities.pdf

Project Statistics
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...statistics.pdf

Landscape
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin.../landscape.pdf

Shadows
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...ts/shadows.pdf

Elevations
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...elevations.pdf

Note some of the files above are large, so it might be best to d/l them instead of just opening them.

Think we might be on the verge of seeing more highrises constructed in Vancouver outside the core then inside it for the first time that I can recall.

Just a little nitpick... has BC Ambulance relocated their ambulance station from that block? From what I recall it doesn't seem like if it has moved lately... = \

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1020648.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1020647.jpg
All pix by Built Form

quite the change - nice to see - a few more blocks of houses could go in a few years

Looks really suburban. And how many times have we heard of the clone-stamp tower proposals that go "29, 30 and 31 stories". In Toronto there's usually a 6-10 storey height difference between twin/triplet towers, while maintaining identical floorplates for efficiency... why isn't that possible in Vancouver suburbs, where height restrictions aren't an issue?

Looking forward to some renders and this development as a whole.

Just makes me wish even more that there was a Boundary Skytrain station.

Full UDP minutes have been posted for 5515-5665 Boundary Road, 5448-4666 Ormidale Street and 3690 Vanness Avenue
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...utes/Jun1.html

Thanks for posting all the info guys, there are in the database now - http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/map...280780792&z=16

Going to council on the 4th, there has been numerous changes since it was first proposed. Height has been clipped a touch as has the number of floors, not much changes in the number of units but they are now listed at 1141. Density is 5.5FSR which is higher then the previous projects (3.5-4FSR).

Sounds like Towers 1, 2 and the mid-rise will be phase 1 (southern half of site) and Tower 3 would be Phase 2. There is a Metro Vancouver sewer line that dissects the site. Phase 1 will house a 23K amenity space in tower 1 that MOSIAC is interested in running. Phase 2 will provide a 10K satellite space for Collingwood Neighbourhood house. There will also be 35K of open space.

The CACs on this site come in at almost $16M. With $11.5M of that for the amenity spaces. $1.5M Cash contribution to allow successful running of the amenity spaces. $1M towards the affordable housing fund. $1M towards local park improvements (Carleton/Collingwood Parks). $1M for a pedestrian/bike bridge over Boundary (BC Parkway upgrade).

There will also be DCL's of $8.3M and public art contribution of $1.3M.

Source: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...cuments/p2.pdf

Ah yes totally forgot about this. I drove by the other week and all the house are boarded up. Kinda creepy looking.

Getting closer to Metrotown - Collingwood amalgamation into what can only be known as Metrowood! :cheers:

I wonder whether this will lead to any kind of rejuvenation of the Boundary - Kingsway intersection that is completely dead from the point of pedestrian usage. Maybe some commercial/retail re-development on Kingsway can take advantage of all that density in Collingwood area.

When the condo towers around Joyce Station were popping up, I had high hopes for the area and turning it into a real town centre but then all of a sudden, it stopped. As it stand now, those hopes have not been realized.

I'm glad for this project coming up near Joyce Stn. Hopefully, it will spur more in that area.

There is a reason all the houses along Boundary (and the block behind it) are old and dilapidated. Over the last decade or so, developers have been buying up those houses for an anticipated rezoning and eastern expansion of Joyce/Collingwood.

You'll notice these houses are old, unlike many other lots in the area that have new Vancouver Specials on them (Main dwelling upstairs with one two-bedroom legal suite and one 1-bedroom illegal suite on the ground level).

Nova, the problem with it being any kind of town centre are two:
1. Proximity to Metrotown
2. Lack of any large commercial plots set aside for grocery etc. (partly because of point #1)

I live in one of the previous Collingwood Village towers so I'll be able to do great photo updates on this once construction commences!

Two of those towers are pretty tall, I know one of them is up on the hill but their nearly as tall as the Telus building and much taller then any of the other Collingwood buildings. This development will have a pretty big impact and should stand out in that area, you will be able to see it from many locations unlike most of the other towers that are hidden in that dip.

Also does anyone know the phases of this project? My guess would be Phase 1-tower on Venables, Phase 2-two towers going up the hill and Phase 3-the low rise building....But the reason I ask is I wonder if there is any chance of this development being built all at one, with maybe just slightly staggered construction start dates. I know its lots of units but there hasnt been anything built in that area for a while and I could imagine there being some pent up demand, the fact that its a very asian investor friendly part of the city would only help.


Also like twoNeurons mentioned about the houses being bought up, the block directly west of this development is all older houses with no new ones built in a long time so I would suspect that it has also been bought up or optioned by a developer for a future rezoning/project.

But many of the other blocks between Joyce/Venables and Kingsway seem to be pretty normal with old houses being replaced with new ones so I would think most of the assembling of single family homes in the area is on the east side of Collignwood village where this development is happening. Too bad, would be nice to bridge the gap between the current high density area with Kingsway with increased density in-between. Would really help in taking that part of Kingsway to another level, even though its doing pretty good as is.

That's the other reason that Joyce isn't a town centre - the nearby competing commercial district on Kingsway - which has the Safeway, London Drugs and other commercial retail space.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've sometimes wondered that too, even from over here. Good point.

Is the development application still not yet approved?

In addition to window and door that were boarded up for houses, boarding is also being built around the proposed redevelopment site. I guess that is to secure the whole area from unwanted squatters.
Also at least 1 house was demolished in the last few days.

It was approved, not development permit has been issued yet.

2 more houses have been demonished. Look like quite a bit of preparation work is being done at the site.

http://www.wallcentrecentralpark.com/

Collingwood neighborhood house will have a new facility here. Wonder what the plans are for their current location.

Part of the boarding fence facing the Skytrain route is built with a big sign saying "Wall Centre Central Park". Obviously this is done to attract the attention of Skytrain passengers and cars travelling by.
Looks like Wall Centre Central Park is now the official name of the development. May be the name of this thread should be changed to reflect that?

Does anyone have any info the one building they have not knocked down yet. It looks like it is some kind of ambulance centre. Or at least that is what I gather when I pass it everyday on the skytrain.

is there a reason as to why it hasn't been knocked down yet?

I don't think the house, used as an ambulance station, has been vacated yet. Front door light is still on at night and car was seen parked behind the house on Friday.
Close to 1/2 of all the houses have been demolished already, I expect no house will be left standing at the site in a few months. :)

Not sure why this project is listed as approved, it was just rejected at UDP 1-9 this evening. I'll take a couple photos of the model, but it is likely to change again before it is approved.

^ The rezoning was approved, so this evening it was going for its development permit. Thanks for 'live-foruming' the UDP.

I thought SSP policy was "approved" wasn't granted until a DP? No biggie I suppose. I guess it will end up looking somewhat like the current proposal though and the density and building heights have all been approved, just not the exact form and massing.

I did my best, I'm new to typing on an iPad. Also had to answer a phone call during this proposal so I missed a fair bit, I will post some pictures tomorrow morning though. It also ran super late so I bailed before the 5555 Dunbar presentation as I needed food.

:previous:

Just some clarification. I thought the Urban Design Panel can only make recommendations and does not have the authority to approve or refuse projects? So is it correct to assume that this vote was just a recommendation to the Development Permit Board who will decide on this project at a later date, or do the UDP and the DPB meet at the same time?

That is correct but going to the DPB w/o UDP approval is asking for trouble. As far as I can recall only one project has ever gone ahead w/o getting approval. If the UDP doesn't support it there is usually something that needs addressing.

Was that the Vancouver Convention Centre?

I hope you don't mind wrenegade. Here are my pix.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070194.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070195.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070196.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070197.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070198.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070199.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070200.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f5...1/P1070202.jpg
All pix by Built Form

The pictures of the model really illustrate how massive this project is. I like all the roof-top green space and the rest of the landscaping. And the towers and podium aren't any different than other Vancouver examples, so I wonder why it was rejected almost unanimously by the UDP?

Thanks for the pix.

WOW... those podiums are just too high. Cut a few floors off and you'd have a far more elegant design.

:previous:

Tht is so true!! Looks rather "Soviet" the way it is now.

are you guys nuts?? the podia are the only thing that keep this project even basically interesting. drop the height on those and you've got yaletown park with a stripe motif. luckily this thing is being dumped out in the middle of nowhere.

Don't mind at all. I'll go through mine and see if I have any other angles, otherwise that pretty much does it. I'm guessing you were there last night as well?

Also, as for the "soviet bloc" comments, it was brought up by members of the panel that the project did look somewhat like a housing project, and that the podiums were too large in relation to the tower. One panelist said the project looked liked something you might see outside of Shenzhen, and that it wasn't a compliment. They also commented on how there was too much sameness going on between towers 1 and 2, and not enough difference with the Vanness tower (which would be built as a second phase). A number of the panelists mentioned that it would have been preferable to add height to the towers in order to reduce the size and lessen the effect of the podiums, but the height has been set under the approved CD-1. The panel was in agreement that the density (5.5 FSR) is the right number for the site, but there is a lot of work to be done on how it all fits.

I honestly don't know where to start with the project. It is so large and very overwhelming. Unfortunately with the building heights essentially fixed under the zoning we won't see too much difference, apart from potentially separating the bridge/podium on towers 1 and 2, and hopefully an improvement on the mews and landscaped area. In my opinion it would have been preferable to have one or two of the towers to become a couple floors higher to spread out the density as well as vary the height of the Ormidale mid-rises, instead of having a 6 storey streetwall the entire way down.

Some decent architectural crowns would go a long way to removing the "Shenzen" effect. So sick of flat roofs with ugly mech penthouses sticking out :hell:

This would have been less coma inducing:
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/314/lessretarded.jpg

I think you mean more coma inducing on the last pic?

Anyways... glad to see the podium heights as they are. It gives the area a more urban and downtown feel. I think they can definitely keep the size and scope, butwork on some general edge smoothing, sloping to help it fit into the area.

This will be the density/look for the area going forward, its just sad that it has the previous developments near the skytrain to lack the same feel... and we are stuck with those towers for another 30 years:(

This is a rare example where I think the project might have been better off on the Burnaby side than in Vancouver given the constraints imposed by the planning staff.

Yes, substantial podiums are nice, but extending a 6-storey podium over the driveway entrance just looks plain tacky. If you're going to grant the density, don't be such sticklers on the massing. The towers shouldn't be so fixed - do extra height or even bulkier floorplates would be better.

agree 100%. also, should have converted that lowrise into some sort of tower or midrise rising progressively for a wave or layer effect with counter-point peak.

Wall Centre St. James Town?

Obviously my quick photoshop job was about the massing rather than facade articulation. Open your mind. There's world beyond rubberstamped point towers.

^ True enough. But what about airflow and light access?

That's adding new meaning to "WALL Centre"

The fact that the towers have pomo-style punched windows suggests that light isn't the main issue. Plus the only thing that the extra 10 floors are going to add is a higher view, which is overrated. Tall towers next to single family homes look ridiculous.

I prefer this for the suburbs:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6...652f9858_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6...652f9858_b.jpg

He meant light access for the neighbouring houses...i.e. shadow analysis...

Are you serious? Imagine living in that mess.

No views, no light, it looks like a soviet goulag.

Point towers are popular for a reason...

And yet in the Edmonton forum, they've recently defended that very kind of design. They've got no problem with encircled "green" spaces that will get no light and have poorly-designed suites with limited frontage for light penetration...

These photos may do it more justice... http://funsterz.com/2012/03/28/amazi...ark-48-photos/

(Apologies for the actual site that it is on- I saw this somewhere else and this was the first link that came up. I honestly don't spend 8 hours a day on this site. At all.)